A chilling parallel

Greg Alexander - February 9, 2005

I was recently having a discussion with a friend of mine about
the origins of World War II. He pointed out evidence that FDR was
a war agitator. I saw mention of an
October 7, 1941 memo
written by Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum
that seemed to lay out a plan for how to bait Japan into attacking us
so that we could get public support for entering into WWII on the side
of the allies. Supposedly it provided an 8-step plan, and
(coincidentally or not) these 8 steps were all taken by FDR within two
years.

That really got my attention because there is a modern group,
Project for the New
American Century(footnote 1) which has
been releasing publications for about 7
years now which have also been agitating for war, and whose
recommendations have been followed by the Bush Jr. administration.
I always get a kick out of finding the apparent internal logic that
would appear to connect otherwise disparate events. Sometimes it
gives us clues into what the underlying plan or mindset is.

But when I actually read the McCollum memo, I was shocked by the
way it relates to PNAC material. Here is an excerpt from the
memo:

Summary
1. The United States is faced by a hostile combination of powers in
both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
2. British naval control of the Atlantic prevents hostile action
against The United States in this area.
...
4. Japan must be diverted if British opposition in Europe is to remain
effective.
5. The United States naval forces now in the Pacific are capable of so
containing and harassing Japan as to nullify her assistance to Germany
and Italy.

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American
policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a
threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since
the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address,
you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for
meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to
enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S.
and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should
aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.
We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but
necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily
eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War
coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when
he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam
Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has
substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to
resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it
is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and
biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the
inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has
made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of
Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will
be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether
Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

They are each memos urging for the US to take pre-emptive military
action. McCollum
believed we should do so because there was a pair of fascist
dictatorships (Italy and Germany) which had used military force to occupy
almost all of Europe. McCollum further cited the Tripartite Pact, an
agreement between Germany, Italy, and Japan, effectively guaranteeing
that if any of them were to become at war with America that the other
two would join in.
Rumsfeld et al, however, expressed that we should go to war because
a sovereign nation with almost no real military power and no real
allies is refusing inspections. The sense I am getting is that what
it means to be a "hawk" has changed.

In case you missed that, let's pound this out a little more
clearly. McCollum believed that Germany and Italy were going to
eventually conquer Britain, and then control the Atlantic and move on
America. He speculated that in such an eventuality Japan and Russia
would likely join in against America. McCollum used, as evidence, the
fact that Germany and Italy had already invaded almost all of Europe
and that Britain was the only balancing force. He also pointed out
that they had signed a treaty which would appear to have no purpose
other than to frighten America into not supporting Britain until it was
too late. You don't even need to dig into the deeper issues of the
holocaust, or the merits of National Socialism. There was already an
active and unambiguous shooting war on.

Now can I remind you what Rumsfeld et al were on about? Inspections.

Yes, it's true, in today's technological world it is possible for a
nation or even a small terrorist group to construct and deliver a
weapon that could kill thousands or even millions of people without having
any traditional military power. But this applies equally to all
groups -- does technological advancement give America the
right or responsibility to inspect every lab in every nation that we
do not "trust"? What about "suspicious" labs in our own nation?
Do the 4th and 5th ammendments to the Constitution of the United
States of America matter in the face of imminent peril?

So let's look a little bit more at the PNAC, what is their
underlying philosophy? Would it contradict this idea of Big Brother
policing The Entire World to control Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Here's an excerpt from their
Statement
of Principles:

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the
world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold
War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United
States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades?
Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century
favorable to American principles and interests?

Okay let's take that apart a little bit. The first thing that
jumps out at me is this concept of victory in the cold war. It wasn't an
actual shooting war so it's not quite that open and shut -- we can't
look at who signed where on some document of surrender and deduce the
winners. There is no denying now that America is in a very strong
position and that the Soviet Union is over. But is that victory? Did
we improve freedom throughout the world?

Where would Afghanistan be today if it weren't for its role in the
proxy wars? What about North Korea? Have we liberated the people of
Russia? What about Cuba? Is the world a better place because America
has a sufficient nuclear arsenal to destroy the world several times
over? We just don't know, we can't envision a 20th century without a
cold war. It looks to me like the cold war itself won. Neither
nation did nearly as much to change the face of the world as this
concept of two superpowers tromping all over smaller powers in some
bizarre race with no clear finish line.

But okay, what if we did win the cold war. What do we do with it?
Well the PNAC believes that we should shape the 21st century in a way
favorable to American interests. That would appear to be a fancy way
of saying that in the 21st century, America should rule the world.
They would seem to answer the question of whether or not America has a
right to invade the privacy of any sovereign nation with a resounding
yes. Is that not the natural role of the country that won the cold
war?

Remember where I started, though. I presented two documents that
appear to have been taken to heart by an American president on
the path to war. One is considered by many to be the "smoking gun"
proving that FDR intentionally precipitated Pearl Harbor and
therefore America's involvement in World War II. It captures a
radical mindset that is considered to have changed America forever.
The other document appears to be the cornerstone of modern
American foreign
policy. When viewed side by side, the radical world-changing document
looks almost moderate and conciliatory by comparison. Scary, eh?

Comments section

Stuff it.

Footnote 1

When I mention PNAC, people often think I am on about some crazy
conspiracy. I assure you, they are not a conspiracy. They are an
overt group whose letters have been signed by members of Bush's
cabinet. They are interesting for two reasons: they are agitating
aggressively for war and imperialism, and they are strongly and
overtly linked to the
current Bush administration. If Clinton were in office, I would
probably be talking about The Democratic
Leadership Council or some other sinister 'New Democrat' think
tank instead.